Hello,
Le mardi 08 mars 2005 Å 17:35 -0800, MattO a Å¥crit :
> The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) has almost finished resolving the
> issues raised during the last call review of the 28 July 2004 working draft
> of VoiceXML 2.1 [1]. Although your feedback was based on the First Working
> Draft, the specification did not change radically, and we have evaluated
> your requests against the LCWD [1]. Our apologies that it has taken so long
> to respond.
Thanks for taking the time to look at my comments; unless specifically
indicated below, I'm satisfied with the VBWG's resolutions.
> "- it's not clear which sections are normative and which are simply
> informative"
>
> VBWG Response: Rejected
> The sections of the document in the main body are normative unless otherwise
> specified. [...]
While this is a perfectly reasonable policy, the reader has no way to
guess it; why not simply mentioning it somewhere in the introduction or
in the conformance clause?
> "- the notion of XML well-formed document is bound to XML 1.0 in the spec;
> is there any discussion on accepting also XML 1.1?"
>
> VBWG Response: N/A
> The VBWG is currently investigating the feasibility of resolving this issue.
> We will get back to you with an official response within a week.
I'm looking forward to it, thanks!
> "- this may be planned for an more advanced draft, but having a table with
> all the elements and attributes defined by VoiceXML 2.1 would be great (like
> in HTML 4.01 [3])"
>
> VBWG Response: Accepted
> A table of elements has been added to the introduction (1.1).
Is there an editors draft I could look at to see the end results?
Thanks,
Dom
--
Dominique HazaÅœl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org